>>>(He still calls it the War of Northern Aggression, much to our delight).
(He still calls it the War of Northern Aggression, much to our delight).
I am a little puzzled as to why this would bring “delight” to you. Do you consider it an evil thing that millions of people were freed from brutal, bitter bondage? Do you and your former pastor advocate a return to the South’s old “peculiar institution”?
Yours in Christ,
John
What I don't advocate is kowtowing to the pc police. His comment displays a difference in generation and in culture--nothing else. If anyone is offended by it, they need thicker skin. Should I get uspet if the english refer to the Revolutionary War as the "uprising in the colonies?"
Dear Brother,
With all due respect, you did not answer my questions. Do you consider being against the brutal slave system from our nations past being “political correct”. I believe any moral person would simply consider it “correct”.
You are willing to condemn speaking against the slave system, but not willing to condemn that system?
Calling it “the war of Northern aggression”, is outright sinful, in several ways.
1) First it is a LIE. The Confederacy started the war with its treasonous rebellion and fired the first shots. (Need I tell you what the word of God says happens to liars?)
2)It at least appears to suggest that we’d be better off in the “good ole days” when the negroes served their white masters who sold them, raped them, and brutally beat them at their whim.
3) It condones and advocates treason and rebellion against rightful governmental authority. (see Romans 13)
You also seemed to backpedal, in your blog entry, you said, it brought you “delight” when he called it that. Now you seem to be explaining it away as a generational difference (talk about political correctness).
That also seems like an inadequate excuse as the “Lord’s judgment of the South’s sins” (that’s what I like to call it
) ended approximately 60 years before your pastor’s birth, when Lee’s desperate and starving troops surrendered to the Union troops, who rather than gloating over their victory, graciously shared their rations with them.
How would you feel if modern Germans referred to WWII as the war of “British, American and Russian Aggression”? That is precisely equivalent to what your pastor does.
Just curious, were there many members in that church of African descent?
Yours in Christ,
John
John,
1) It is not a lie, it is a perspective. Southerners, regardless of their view on slavery, viewed it as a war of agrees ion. You do know that many poor Southerners were against slavery in the same sense that auto-workers would be against slaves building cars: it cost them jobs. Though against slavery, they fought for the South because they viewed the north as the aggressor.
2) It suggests nothing of the sort, do not confuse what you infer as being implied.
3) It makes no value judgment about the validity of the south's actions. It was a delight in that it was quaint, not because of what you are suggesting, that it demonstrates support for slavery. How would I feel if Germans called WWII the war of "British, American and Russian Aggression"? It would not bother me in the least.
There were no African Americans in the church. (Actually there were not many people period, about 40--it was not a Southern Baptist Church but a Reformed Baptist Church. Sadly, as many have pointed out, Sunday morning is the most segregated part of the week in the US.
Commenting by HaloScan
